A Reappraisal of Column Versus Line in the Peninsular War

Oman and Historiography

The writings of Sir Charles Oman and Sir John Fortescue dominated subsequent
English-language Napoleonic history. Their views became very much the
received wisdom. The tactical summary provided by West Point professors
Vincent Esposito and John Elting in A Military History and Atlas
of the Napoleonic Wars clearly reflected their influence.[67] Jac Weller's Wellington in the
Peninsula, which appeared in 1969 to generally high praise, utilized
Oman's 'musket counting' approach to calculate the enormous firepower
advantage of a British line versus a French column.[68]
Such calculations seemed to provide all the reader needed to know to
understand the battlefield outcome. With the publication of his classic
The Campaigns of Napoleon, Sandhurst professor David Chandler
vaulted into prominence as the foremost English-language Napoleonic
historian.[69] The entry for Maida
in his Dictionary of the Napoleonic Wars stated, "Maida
is important tactically as demonstrating the inherent superiority of
British tactics over the French column of attack."[70]

The tactical edifice created by Oman and Fortescue began to crumble
in the early 1980s. This writer stimulated a debate in an enthusiasts'
journal called Empires, Eagles, and Lions when he published "The
Battle of Maida and Secondary Source History."[71]
Soon readers worldwide entered the debate and some provided new sources
to challenge the conventional wisdom. Among those following the discussion
was David Chandler. At a Napoleonic symposium Doctor Chandler sought
ought this writer and politely demanded my proofs. A photocopy of Lieutenant
Griois's letter combined with additional British accounts won the day.
Chandler kindly tolerated the ardent zeal of a young historian and interceded
to help find a publisher. The result was the original version of this
essay which appeared in 1982 in the Journal of the Society for Army
Historical Research.[72] Six years later, Chandler presented
his own case to the XIIIth International Colloquy on Military History
in a paper entitled "Column Versus Line: Oman Versus Modern Historians
- The case of Maida 1806".[73]

Meanwhile, another Sandhurst historian, Paddy Griffith, had also read
my critique of Oman while developing his own ideas. Griffith concurred
about French tactical flexibility while arguing persuasively that the
British did not simply stand in line and fire volleys to win out, but
rather swept the field by firing and then conducting a bayonet charge.[74] By 1998 a new paradigm seemed to
have set in with the publication of two books devoted to Napoleonic
battle tactics.[75] Both claimed that
the French fought in line at Maida and both fully explored French tactical
variety. The 2002 publication of The Battle of Maida 1806: Fifteen
Minutes of Glory, appeared to have brought the issue of column versus
line to a satisfactory conclusion: "The contemporary sources are...the
best evidence and their conclusion is clear: General Compère's brigade
formed into line to attack Kempt's Light Battalion."[76] The decisive action at Maida took place in less than
fifteen minutes. It had taken 72 years to rectify a great historian's
error about what transpired during those minutes.

Surely from time to time enthusiasts and academic historians share
the frustration about why the world is not listening to them. They diligently
research something, often for an excessive amount of time, labor mightily
to share their insights with their peers, and then groan in despair
when their effort fails to produce the anticipated éclat. As the old
saying goes, 'History never repeats itself, but historians seldom differ.'

Notes:

[67]. Vincent Esposito
and John Elting A Military History and Atlas of the Napoleonic
Wars (New York: Frederick A. Praeger Publishers, 1964).

[68].Jac Weller, Wellington
in the Peninsula 1808-1814 (London: Kaye & Ward, 1969), see
51 for his calculations for Vimeiro.

[75].Brent Nosworthy,
Battle Tactics of Napoleon and His Enemies (London: Constable, 1995)
and Rory Muir, Tactics and the Experience of Battle in the Age of
Napoleon (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1998).In the interest
of full disclosure I should say that Nosworthy contacted me several
times about sources and methods while Muir read my original essay,
partially accepted the premise, but called it "bad-tempered."